Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Progressive Theology ^ | July 07

[xzins]

Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years?

Wednesday, 11 July 2007

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

[Cronos]

Jewish priests were Levites

and you're saying that the Jews were/are pagan or cultic?

[Cronos]

BUT around the diciples were priests.. pagan priests.. many of them

Like the Jewish High Priests? You consider Judaism a cult, a pagan cult?

Mostly ROMAN.. from ROMAN Gods

Again, you seem to not have read a line of history -- Judea was mostly Jewish Israelite, except for Idumeans (Edomites) who had been forcibly converted to Judaism by the Maccabees.

Judea was surrounded by nations that worshipped gods like Chamosh (of the Moabites) or Anatolians goddesses like that of the Earth Mother Cybele -- have you ever heard of those?

The non-indigineous gods were GREEK, like Athena etc. or, a really popular god at that time was Persian, or maybe Hindu -- Mithras. Have you ever heard of those?

Roman gods? Ha! The Ancient Romanics never developed a strong religion of their own, but adopted Greek gods (Mars = Ares, Zeus = Jupiter, Hercules = Heracles).

and you DO realise that there is a difference between ancient Romans like Mark Antony, Caligula, Marcus Aurelius, Septimus Severus and between Catholicism, don't you?

and you do know that the Byzantines never called themselves that, but called themselves Romaioi (Romans)? So, would you then call modern day Greeks, turks, Bulgars, etc. Romans?

And what would you call Romanians?

[Cronos]

Not so.. Some christians are loyal to "the Church"(or clergy) or even to "Mary".. some particular "saint".. or other minutia and they do not even KNOW THE HOLY SPIRIT.. except in conversation..

"Loyalty" to The Church of God, that was FOUNDED by God and is based on GOD's principle's includes "loyalty" to the Holy SPirit -- your statement is an oxymoron, it's like saying "Oh, some people are loyal to America, other people are loyal to the Spirit of America"

Your statements are flat out wrong. Catholics are part of The Church that is filled with the Holy Spirit

[Cronos]

The Church being a building is an oxymoron and a heresy

Oxymoron: A rhetorical figure in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined, as in a deafening silence and a mournful optimist.

Heresy: opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system

A Church is a community of believers, hence the term, the Apostolic Church.

Do you now understand how incorrect your statement is?

[kosta50]

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (1 John 4:12-13 KJV)

The author is saying that if we have love for one another it is from God. I agree with that, because love comes from God, but that would by necessity include non-Christians as well. Otherwise we are saying that unless we have "received" the Spirit (through baptism) no one can love others.

Orthodox theology doesn't see baptism as we receive God, but rather God adopting us into His body (Church). The sacrament of Baptism is therefore also called Adoption.

If God's love is perfected (made complete) in us, then we are perfect, but the NT tells us "be(come) perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect." [Mat 5:48]  Note that the tense in Greek in this case is future and that KJV translates it (incorrectly) as present. 

Since we are n ot perfect, at best we can imitate  Christ, and try to follow in His steps, but never assume that at any moment we are perfect yet.

It is our hope that before we are called to leave this earth, we can attain some of that perfection (theosis), or at least honestly try, even if we honestly fail, by imitation and not by magic.

If those we love "live" in our hearts (more like minds), spiritually, we can say that God certainly "lives" in us. But there are times, daily, when He is not in our hearts and there are moments when we have nothing but contempt for others in our hearts.

So, to answer your question then, God is present in my mind daily, but He is also absent from my mind daily. It's not He who leaves me, but I who leave Him, daily.  

Because we are sinners, we know that we expel God from us daily through neglect, arrogance and pride, knowingly and unknowingly, returning evil for His goodness. Knowing we have rejected Him on countless occasions in one day, we repent and pray

Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere and fillest all things, Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and abide in us, and cleanse us from every impurity, and save our souls, O Good One.

Unlike you Protestants, we think of ourselves sinners, not saints.

Maybe you aren't "Elect"

If so, it's by my election, not His.

[Cronos]

Those languages were Patois of several sources

In Europe,you may recall that the Roman Empire stretched from what is now Britain to what is now Iraq. The common language was Latin. This Empire, in the form of it's polity existed from 300 BC until 450 AD in the West and until 1453 AD in the East. It's institutions survive until this day. The language spoken by the common man in Western Europe, in the lands that were formerly Empire, WAS Latin. There is so much historical proof for that it's hard to refute.

Latin was the spoken, and ONLY Written language in the West, just as Greek was for the East, just as ARamaic was in Judea at the time of Christ.

The Church spoke Latin for the same reason it speaks English now, it is the language of the people.

[kosta50]

Kosta: The Orthodox Church did not practice selling indulgences, and disagreed with the Latin Church on issue of theology, yet we never changed the Apostolic theology to "reform" the Church.

FK: How could you have? You were a million miles away and did not speak the language.

What I meant to say is that the Greek side did not change theology simply because it associated abuses of power/praxis with erroneous theology. Remember, we Orthodox believe that the Latins changed theology and this resulted in the Schism. The same happened with Luther & Co.  They reinterpreted Paul and started teaching a different faith and left the Catholic Church.

Today we realize that Latins, coming from a different mindset, by necessity formulate theology differently from us and by necessity reach different doctrinal definitions. But when we look at those definitions from their mindset, of phronema as we like to call it, we see that what they believe is not as different as it seems.

My point then was to draw a parallel: just as the Orthodox believed that kneeling on Sundays (prohibited by the 1st Ecumenical Council), use of a wafer instead of regular bread, fasting on Sundays, etc. were abuses of praxis, the Orthodox Church did not go out of its way to reinterpret and, indeed, reject the apostolic authority and sacramental nature of the Church as the Reformers did when they created a different religion.

In fact, despite the 1,000-year-old Schism the two particular Apostolic Churches remain amazingly unchanged and in 99% of the cases in theological agreement. That's because the Church both east and West relied on patristic teachings of the earliest fathers, always reverting back to the mindset of the earliest Church, rather than venture into private and individual interpretations of the Bible.

[Cronos]

Only among Romans; the local Patois was the language spoken by the oppressed locals.. always was in any part of the world.. Alaexander had influence almost to India..
"oppressed" locals? You are kidding, right? In the Roman Empire, most people were happy with the order that Rome brought -- and Roma also pretty much let them do what they liked.

and you do realise there is a difference between a historical Empire and The Church, don't you?

[Cronos]

The roman catholic church is still today keeping their people in the DARK.. Its a control issue.. To wrest control from the Holy Spirit.. They control by magic rites and historical revision.. rewriting history..

Yes, magic rites. They also drink children's blood by the moonlight and sing "ooggga-boogga-googa-luoogga". They also make a lot of historical revisions, like pretending to tell their flocks that people in the earlier centuries didn't speak English -- when everyone knows English was spoken by Christ, as we see in the KJV.

[Cronos]

I do not deny the roman catholic church assumed civil power and forced priests into civil power..

Do you ever read any books? Civil authorities spoke Latin the West, Greek in the East. Common men spoke Latin the West, Greek in the East. Your statements are from some "Protocols of Zions" against The Church

[Cronos]

There are two versions history no doubt about it.. having read only one version some are pretty much in a 2nd reality..

Yes, one version that is the truth and is verifiable, and the other (which you are spouting) that tells us that Christ spoke English, that the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Churches are Roman, that Latin wasn't the basis for the Romance languages and wasn't the lingua franca until dialects became languages, that all people in the first millenium were scholars able to read.

[Cronos]

During the Middle Ages, the language of many courts in Europe became French - including the Russian court. Today, the common language of communication is English. I have been in many common meetings at FMC where we had Germans conversing with Mexicans and Spanish conversing with Brazilians conversing with Poles conversing with Flemish. We all communicated in English. Same deal

So, you just proved that English was spoken by Christ and by the Jewish Kings /sarcasm

[Cronos]

German languages consisted of few hundred grunts and were inadequate for literary use.

And hosepipe, FYI -- English IS a Germanic language, a Western Germanic language like Flemish. It does have a large amount of Romance language touches to it, especially grammatically, so it is a very vulgar (i.e. common language), JUST like how Vulgate latin was the common language earlier....


You do realise that English is a part of the Western Germanic languages are a part of the broader Germanic language sub-group, that is part of the Nordic language group which is part of the Indo-European family. Other members of the Indo-European family of languages are Hindi, Sanskrit, Russian, Polish, latin, Greek, Spanish, etc.

Some European languages like Magyar and Finnish aren't Indo-European while Bulgar has many Turkic strains and Turkish is a Turkic language related to Mongol.

[Cronos]

Could you name people who were murdered by the Church for reading the Bible without authority?

Rocky and Bullwinkle.

[Cronos]

I, as a clay pot, am not concerned about what the Maker does. I only praise the Maker. And, it’s not MY theology, but the Bible

Sure. And you're a flawed clay pot, like all of us in modern times, and destined for the fire. The only good pots were in the first few centuries (the 144 thousand were filled up then by martyrs). So, welcome, all of us are going to the flames, by your theology.

[Cronos]

That post nicely illustrates a fundamental doctrinal difference between Catholics and Evangelicals. Everyone, repeat EVERYONE, repeat EVERYONE deserves nothing but eternal "roasting". He would be absolutely justified in doing just that. The fact that He chooses to save some is a testament to His love and mercy. The fact that He chooses not to save all is a testament to His sovereignty.

Yes, and those being saved are part of the super "ELITE", the "ELECT". Also, that club was filled in the first centuries after Christ (by the martyrs etc., the 144,000 seats were filled), so now all of us, including YOU and ME are going for eternal "roasting". Welcome. Your philosophy states that all of us were damned from before eternity.

[Cronos]

How do you explain the rationale as to who is chosen and who isn’t? Kinda arbitrary isn’t it? If I don’t have the gnosis if I am chosen as an elect, isn’t that licence to do as I will? Further, if I have the gnosis that I am chosen as an elect, isn’t that licence to do as I will?

The "elect" club was closed centuries ago by all the martyrs. Now, all of us (post, say the 3rd century) are going to be "roasted" -- that includes armydoc, you and me.

In either case, what’s stopping me? If I am condemned to hell regardless of what I do, then I may as well get what I can now. If I am going to heaven regardless of what I do, then I may as well get what I can now

Exactly, that IS the philosophy of armydoc, hosepipe, xzins, etc. etc. that since the "elect" was closed centuries ago, and since the world is "evil", created by a demiurge called Yebbaloth, we can do whatever we like as long as we get the Gnosis about Yebbaloth.

So, a murder by the non-"elect" that is by those born after the 3rd century, is ok. All of those born after the 3rd century are not "elect" (since that club was filled), hence these non-elect can do what we like.

[Elsie]

You’ve also forgotten to send on that seven figure check to me.

I'm SO sorry!

I've been REAL forgetful lately.

Here; print this and enjoy your seven figures...

[Elsie]

He DARNED you to HECK.

HMMmm...

This seems vaguely familiar...

[Elsie]

If you believe the Bible verses of inclusivity, then the philosophy rankles. If you believe the Bible verses that appear to indicate exclusivity, then as long as you’re in the club, boy howdy, in you go.

Ah...

The difference between what you BELIEVE determine what the Bible says,

versus what the Bible says determining what you BELIEVE!